Meet The Puritans

The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology

Posted on 30. Jan, 2010 by Mark Jones.

This book by my friend John Ronning is one of the best works I’ve read on Christology.  Where did the “logos” title from the Gospel of John come from? Ronning makes the most convincing argument I’ve come across that the “Logos” title was developed from the Aramaic Targums, not from Philo.  The biblical exegesis in this book is stunning, particularly the connections Ronning makes between the Old Testament and John’s gospel.  Another title for this book could have been “And YHWH became flesh.”  I think the translations of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are all done by Ronning himself.  You can get a preview at google books here.  Interestingly, Thomas Goodwin made a similar argument many years ago, but without the detail that Ronning goes into.

For Goodwin, the title of ‘the Word’ (ho logos) is not a reference to Christ being the thought or counsel of the Father’s mind since this ‘inclines too much unto the Notion of Plato, and other Heathen Philosophers’ (Of the Knowledge, 60). Goodwin is not unaware that the logos title had been used before John’s time by various Greek philosophers. However, in Goodwin’s mind, John refers to Christ as ‘the Word’ (logos) not because of Greek influences but because of the evidence in the Old Testament itself.

As a result, both Philo and Plato, by using the terminology of ‘ho logos’, are guilty of stealing ‘their knowledge from the Jews, and vend[ing] it as their own’ (Ibid, 62). Goodwin shows that the title, ‘the Word’, was used by the Jews, as a reference to the Messiah, in the Aramaic Targums, what Goodwin called the ‘Caldee Paraphrasts’ (Ibid). So, for example, Goodwin quotes the Isaiah Targum (Isa. 45:17) which makes several references to the divine Word (Memra). Hence, ‘Israel is saved by the Memra of the LORD with an everlasting salvation’. The KJV, based on the Masoretic Text (MT) in the OT, reads: ‘But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation’ (Isa. 45:17). Moreover, the MT text of Hosea 1:7 (… and will save them by the LORD their God …) is transliterated by the Aramaic Targum as ‘I will redeem them by the Word of the Lord their God.’

Referring to Christ as ‘the Word’, then, is Christologically loaded in terms of his divinity because of how the Aramaic Targums make use of the title, ‘the Word’ (Owen, 21:354). Not only, then, does the immediate context of John 1 show that Christ is the divine Word who existed in eternity, but the very fact that John calls Christ ‘the Word’ is evidence in itself for the deity of Christ because of how the Jews would have understood such terminology.

Continue Reading

Westminster Assembly Project & Reformation Heritage Books

Posted on 28. Jan, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

The Westminster Assembly Project, best known for the edition of Assembly minutes and papers to be published by Oxford University Press, has now entered an extensive publishing agreement with Reformation Heritage Books.

John Bower has joined historian Chad Van Dixhoorn in launching three new series of books by the Westminster Assembly, and one series of new and classic studies on the Assembly, all being published by Reformation Heritage Books. It is hoped that both texts and studies will stimulate further research in the Assembly and the religious dimension of English civil war politics. Certainly future publications on British post-Reformation theology and Puritanism will be enriched by these publications, briefly described here.

Principal Documents of the Westminster Assembly. This series will produce the six chief works authored by the Assembly for covenanted uniformity of religion in England: the Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, Directory for Public Worship, Directory for Church Government, and The Psalter. Each volume will contain a historical introduction, a critical text, and multi-column comparisons of original manuscripts and early editions. The inaugural volume, The Larger Catechism, has been prepared by John Bower and scheduled for a launch in March 2010.

Writings of the Westminster Divines. The aim of this series is to provide scholarly editions of texts by Westminster Assembly members and commissioners. Volumes will include previously unpublished manuscripts as well as republications of rare editions. Carefully determined editorial standards will be used to ensure an authoritative product that is accessible to modern readers, while remaining reliable for students and scholars.

Westminster Assembly Facsimiles. With this new series, Reformation Heritage Books and the Westminster Assembly Project are providing electronic and print access to publications by Assembly members in their original form. Free PDF downloads will be made available through the Westminster Assembly Project website. The same text can be purchased for your collection in paperback and hard cover from Reformation Heritage Books.

Studies of the Westminster Assembly. Complementing the primary source material in the other series, the Assembly studies will provide access to classic studies that have not been reprinted and to new studies, providing some of the best existing research on the Assembly and its members.

For more information visit the Westminster Assembly Project. Be sure to check for more information on and about this project at our RHB website and blog.

Continue Reading

Sermons of a “German Puritan” on the Apostles’ Creed

Posted on 27. Jan, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

My friend and colleague, R. Scott Clark, is general editor of what is going to be a great series of books, “Classic Reformed Theology,” published by Reformation Heritage Books (Grand Rapids, Mich.).

Volume 1 came out last year: William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, trans. Todd M. Rester, introduced by Joel R. Beeke and Todd M. Rester. In this volume we have a fascinating series of sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism from an Englishman exiled to the Netherlands. For those of us who are required to preach catechetical sermons this is a treasure trove. For those with scruples about this practice, Ames shows how the doctrines of the Catechism can be responsibly preached via an exposition and application of Scripture.

I am excited to announce that Volume 2 is now in-print: Caspar Olevianus, An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Lyle D. Bierma, introduced by R. Scott Clark. This volume is a series of sermons Olevianus, one of the key contributors to the Heidelberg Catechism, preached on the Apostles’ Creed. Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:

From the “Introduction”

It is certain that there are two spiritual kingdoms, even in this world: the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. Every person necessarily belongs to one or the other here in this life . . . there are two spiritual kingdoms even in this world. The one is the kingdom of Christ, made up of all who repent, believe in Christ, and are baptized in His name. It also includes their children, unless, when they are grown, through unbelief they reject the benefit that is offered. But the other is the kingdom of Satan and darkness, made up of all who do not repent and do not believe in Christ. Some of them are not baptized but hold baptism in contempt, like the Turks and Jews. Others are baptized but are nevertheless impenitent and unbelievers. Although they are baptized and join themselves to the visible church, nevertheless they remain in the kingdom and power of darkness until such time as they are converted and believe (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. 6:8–10, 12; 2 Cor. 12:21) . . . Let us then see what the kingdom of Christ is, which begins in the faithful in this world and is also called, with the same meaning, “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 3:2; Luke 4:43; 7:28). The kingdom of Christ in this world is the administration of salvation by which Christ the King Him- self outwardly, through the gospel and baptism, gathers to Himself and calls to salvation a people or visible church (in which many hypocrites are mixed). To those in this congregation who have always been His elect, He Himself admin- isters and bestows that salvation to which He calls them. He makes the outward call efficacious, granting them the repentance and faith by which they respond to the One calling them. Those He calls in this way He also justifies, not imputing their sins to them. And those He justifies He also glorifies, purging them daily more and more of their sins, and training, forming, and perfecting them in all godliness, righteousness, and eternal life so that the glory of Christ the King may shine in them (pp. 9, 10).

On “I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth”

The purpose of this description is that once the nature of God is known, we might embrace Him through faith as our only and greatest good, and be afraid to offend Him, so that through this true faith and fear, or repentance, God might be glorified in us. For when we hear, first of all, that God, who by an eternal covenant has promised to be our God, is intelligent, wise, eternal, good, righteous, merciful, etc., we rightly conclude from the form of this gracious covenant that He not only is this way by nature but also wishes to show Himself as such to us believers—and to do so by an eternal covenant, even though all creatures might seem to convince us otherwise. Whoever knows this nature of God, by whom one is received into the covenant, has ample basis for believing in Him and for living by faith according to the will of God (p. 24).

On “He Descended Into Hell”

The true meaning of the article “He descended into hell”

There is no doubt that the descent of Christ into hell is the lowest and most extreme degree of His humiliation, by which He humbled himself for us and, indeed, emptied Himself completely (Acts 2). We should now look at what kind of humiliation this is by examining several meanings of the descent into hell. These are the various meanings: Hell can mean grave; second, it can be translated as “place of the damned”; third, it can mean extreme anguish (Ps. 18[:4–6]; 1 Sam. 2[:6]); fourth, it can be taken for the condition in burial and what follows burial—that state of complete disgrace, as those who have been buried lie oppressed and, as it were, swallowed up by death (Isa. 14:11, 15–17). With respect to the first meaning, we have already said why the descent into hell ought not to be taken simply as burial in this article. We have also shown that the second meaning, descent to the place of the damned, does not agree with this article. That leaves two meanings, anguish of soul and that state or condition that follows both that anguish and the burial itself (p. 88).

The fruit of Christ’s descent into hell

The summary, therefore, of both meanings of Christ’s descent into hell (the latter of which better fits the order of the articles of faith) is that Christ had to be utterly humbled, or forsaken by God, so that we would not be forsaken by God ourselves. We see that, first, in that His divine nature did not exercise its power, so that He might experience the pains of death not only in body but also in soul.

Second, that same Word, or divine nature, rested and for a time did not energize the lump [of flesh] that it had assumed, but allowed the body to be divided from the soul for three days while it was in the hands or power of the grave. This was so that in every way Christ might be truly humbled for us, to the end that we might be certain that not only are our souls delivered from the pains of death, but also all disgrace is expelled from our bodies through this Christ and by His merit. It is also by His efficacy that it will be finally and fully taken away, even though for a time our bodies are kept enclosed by the grave, seemingly conquered by death.

Finally, believing minds have so much more trust in the love of God and in the complete expiation made by the Son when they see how humble and abject (yet without sin) Christ became, and when they see more clearly what their salvation cost Him (p. 91).

Continue Reading

New Book

Posted on 06. Jan, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

Just a shameless plug for a friend, David VanDrunen, whose book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Eerdmans, 2010), traces these themes in various thinkers including the “Puritans.”

Now back to our normal programming (or lack thereof).

Continue Reading

Confusing “Law” and “Gospel”?

Posted on 07. Dec, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Perhaps you have heard people speak of the law and the gospel in different ways? Some are rather dogmatic about their opinion being the only right opinion.  In connection with this, I often hear the law-gospel distinction described in the following way:  indicative = gospel & imperative = law.  Or, the gospel = justification; it is an announcement that our sins have been forgiven and that we stand accepted before God through the death and resurrection of Christ; the gospel is totally outside of us, so the argument goes.  Or, again, “done” (gospel) and “do” (law).  I want to offer some comments on this type of thinking because I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue.

In the first place, I am not comfortable with how some use the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Some admit that they use these terms not in their precise biblical sense, but rather as “systematic” categories.  A few may even be so bold to agree that the Torah contains both “law” and “gospel”.  To insist that the “gospel” equals “done” and the “law” equals “do” invites confusion for any serious student of the Bible.  This antithesis causes a host of problems when read back into Scripture, particularly since Paul has a version of law-gospel that bears little resemblance to the  “Lutheran” antithesis.

The Reformed have historically taught that the gospel both promises and commands.  To say that all imperatives are strictly law reflects an Antinomian position, at least historically.  Samuel Rutherford’s work, “Spirituall Antichrist”, highlights the various tendencies among Antinomian writers of the seventeenth century.  One way to explain what’s at stake in this debate would be to evaluate the contention that the gospel persuades rather than commands.  Rutherford was adamant that the gospel persuades and commands.  Consider the following:

“The Gospel (according to Robert Towne) perswades rather then commands.  But say we, it both commands, (as the Law doth) and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ…so here be no differences at all” (Spirituall Antichrist, II.122).

Elsewhere Rutherford argues that the law and the gospel require the same obedience (Pt. II.7).  Indeed, “positively”, they are not contrary to one another.  “Perfect obedience, which the Law requireth, and imperfect obedience which the Gospel accepteth are but graduall differences” (II.8).  Moreover, “the Gospel abateth nothing of the height of perfection, in commanding what ever the law commandeth in the same perfection….In acceptation of grace, the Gospel accepteth lesse than the law, but commandeth no lesse” (Pt. II.8).  Incidentally, Rutherford, like Turretin, affirms that good works are necessary for salvation.

Of course, Rutherford was aware of a common cry of the Antinomians, a cry that one often hears today:

(Antinomian): “Yee confound Law and Gospel, and runne on that common error, that the Gospel is conditionall …”

Answer: “It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditionall Gospel….2. Remission is but one of the promised mercies of the Gospel” (II.63).

I should note that Rutherford was not extreme in his day and William Perkins (see his commentary on Galatians) and John Owen (see Works, III.604-10) echoed similar sentiments.  It is one thing to find authors that speak about distinguishing between law and gospel, but it is quite another thing to understand how these concepts function within their system of thought.

Now, one has to applaud the intentions of the Lutherans and those who agree with how they commonly distinguish between law and gospel.  We should always be zealous to protect justification by faith alone.  My contentions have not so much to do with how this concept relates to justification, but what we mean by the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Sure, the law drives the unconverted to find salvation in Christ, but what about those who are in Christ?

Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises.  Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses.  For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis.  Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners.  But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit.  So, when we come to Romans 8:13 do we call it “law” or “gospel”.  I think the answer is obvious.  But, I’m not so sure some of my Reformed brothers would come to the same conclusion as I would!

I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis (1 Cor. 7:19).  The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4).

Rutherford realized, as did his contemporaries, that command and promise are sometimes inextricably intertwined with one another (see again Rom. 8:13; life is promised to those who mortify the sinful nature by the Spirit).  But, whatever the case, the promises, as well as the commands, fall under the rubric of Paul’s “gospel”.

All of this is to suggest that I do not view the biblical gospel as synonymous with justification.  It certainly includes justification, but it is not limited to justification.  Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3), which includes not only its illegal character (Rom. 1-3), but also its enslaving power (Rom. 6).

Thus, I would say that the gospel includes not only what Christ has done for us, but also what Christ does in us, namely, by forming us into the image of God (Rom. 8:29).  This seems to be a central concern of Paul’s throughout his letters.  Thankfully, the gospel includes God’s work in me (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:12-13).

The antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself.  This antithesis entered because of sin.  But, as Richard Gaffin has noted,

“The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer.  How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me.  Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me.  But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.  Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God” (By Faith, Not by Sight, 103).

I think Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p. 105), illustrates just how problematic certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis can be when he considers whether a commandment belongs to the gospel.  He writes:

“Objection. There is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel, but to the law. The preaching of repentance is a precept. Therefore the preaching of repentance does not belong to the gospel, but to the law.

Answer. We deny the major, if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.”

Some time ago I spoke with a Seminarian who had a rather wooden view of the “law-gospel” antithesis and asked him what he thought about the Sermon on the Mount.  It appeared, to use a phrase from T. David Gordon, “that he was entirely flummoxed by it”; indeed, “I would like to think that he was, at some level, aware of his incapacity to make any sense of it.”  This student used the law-gospel antithesis as a pedagogical tool that he brought to every text; but, when he came to Rom. 8:13 he wasn’t quite sure how to divide the text up given his hermeneutical assumptions.

I understand that many have been zealous to protect the graciousness of God’s saving purposes towards his people, but I am not entirely convinced that narrowing the meaning of “gospel” will prove helpful in the long run.  Many good men in our tradition make this clear; and I’d like to think – in fact, I’m sure this is the case – that this is because God’s Word makes this clear.

Besides that which I’ve mentioned above, let me emphasize the importance of maintaining the indicative-imperative structure of theology, which we see clearly delineated in Scripture (Ex. 20; Rom. 1ff.; Eph. 1-6; 1 Peter 1ff.).  But this structure falls within the context of “gospel” preaching.  To preach the gospel is to preach of Christ’s death and resurrection as the basis/ground for both our justification and our Spirit-wrought obedience.  Some might admit that they distinguish between the broader and narrower uses of the term, but, as I said above, this can be very confusing, and the emphasis among some today seems to be on the “narrow” understanding of the terms, which happens to be the less biblical way of looking at the law and the gospel (terms that in the NT are generally used to speak of redemptive-historical contrasts).

The final word from William Perkins:

“The Gospel, as it teacheth what is to be done, so it hath also the efficacy of the Holy Ghost adjoined to it, by whom being regenerated we have strength both to believe the Gospel and to perform those things which it commandeth” (Art of Prophesying VII, [Abingdon, 1970], 341-342).

Continue Reading

More Owen Audio on Prayer

Posted on 03. Dec, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Lectures 6 and 7 of my series through John Owen’s, A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, are now online.

Lecture 6 dealt with chapter 5, “The Matter of Prayer,” and Lecture 7 dealt with chapter 6, “The Manner of Prayer.”

You may also download a .pdf of the outlines: Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer–chapter 5 and Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer–chapter 6.

Continue Reading

Days of Fasting and Prayer in the Reformed Tradition

Posted on 26. Nov, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

In honor of the National Thanksgiving Day here in the U.S. today, I thought it would be beneficial to say a word or two about the history of days of fasting and prayer—whether focusing on penitence or thanksgiving—in the Reformed tradition. I would also like to offer a few reasons why this practice is beneficial but also why it is not followed as often in our time.

Some History

First, let me survey some of the history of days of fasting and prayer. These days have been in the church of Christ since the ancient church. In our Reformed tradition one reads of the Reformed churches in Switzerland (e.g., Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva), the Netherlands, France, and England (see below) engaging in these services often, whether in times of great blessing or curse. One testimony of this in the tradition in which I minister, the Dutch Reformed tradition, is the prayer, “A General Confession of Sins, and Prayer Before the Sermon and on Days of Fasting and Prayer” (Psalter Hymnal, p. 181). This prayer was an application of articles 66–67 of the Church Order of the Synod of Dort, which said,

In times of war, pestilence, calamities, heavy persecution of the Churches, and other general distresses, the Ministers of the Churches shall request the Government to employ their authority and command that public days of Fasting and Prayer be appointed and set aside (art. 66).

The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others (art. 67).

In our context now, days of prayer are traditionally held on the second Wednesday of March in relation to crops or on the National Day of Prayer (first Thursday in May).

Teaching in the Confessions

The Reformed Confessions also approve of such services and give us prescriptive details about them. In the Second Helvetic Confession, published by Heinrich Bullinger in 1566, he contrasted living a life of drunkenness with fasting:

For fasting is nothing else than the abstinence and temperance of the godly, and a watching and chastising of our flesh, taken up for present necessity, whereby we are humbled before God, and withdraw from the flesh those things with which it is cherished, to the end that it may the more willingly and easily obey the Spirit. Wherefore they do not fast at all that have no regard for those things, but imagine that they fast if they stuff their bellies once a day, and for a set or prescribed time do abstain from certain meats, thinking that by this very work wrought: they please God and acquire merit. Fasting is a help of the prayers of the saints and all virtues; but the fasts wherein the Jews fasted from meat, and not from wickedness, pleased God nothing at all, as we may see in the books of the Prophets.

Fasting, according to Bullinger, is an abstaining of the body with the goal of serving the Spirit. Bullinger then went on to distinguish public and private fasts and the need for both:

Now, fasting is either public or private. In olden times they celebrated public fasts in troublesome times and in the afflictions of the Church; wherein they abstained altogether from meat till the evening, and bestowed all that time in holy prayers, the worship of God, and repentance. These differed little from mournings and lamentations; and of these there is often mention made in the Prophets, and especially in the 2d chapter of Joel. Such a fast should be kept at this day, when the Church is in distress. Private fasts are used by every one of us, according as every one feels the spirit weakened in him; for so he withdraws that which might cherish and strengthen the flesh.

Bullinger applied what happened in ancient days to his own, saying that not only did the people of God “celebrate public fasts” in “olden times” during times of trouble, but “at this day” such fasts “should be kept” by us. Finally, Bullinger characterized the attitude of true Christian fasting in these words:

All fasts ought to proceed from a free and willing spirit, and such a one as is truly humbled, and not framed to win applause and the liking of men, much less to the end that a man might merit righteousness by them. But let every one fast to this end, that he may deprive the flesh of that which would cherish it, and that he may the more zealously serve God.

Fasting is not divine or ecclesiastical law, but the free and willing service of the Christian “that he may the more zealously serve God.”

Later, James Ussher wrote the Irish Articles of Religion in 1615 to express the Puritan faith in Ireland. Three of the 104 articles deal with fasting. Article 49 deals with the context for such days of fasting, humiliation, and prayer:

When almighty God smiteth us with affliction, or some great calamity hangeth over us, or any other weighty cause so requireth, it is our duty to humble ourselves in fasting, to bewail our sins with a sorrowful heart, and to addict ourselves to earnest prayer, that it might please God to turn his wrath from us, or supply us with such graces as we greatly stand in need of.

Ussher went on to describe fasting as “a withholding of meat, drink, and all natural food, with other outward delights, from the body, for the determined time of fasting” (art. 50). He went on to describe the inner aspect of fasting:

We must not fast with this persuasion of mind, that our fasting can bring us to heaven, or ascribe holiness to the outward work wrought; for God alloweth not our fast for the work sake (which of itself is a thing merely indifferent), but simply respecteth the heart, how it is affected therein. It is, therefore, requisite that first, before all things, we cleanse our hearts from sin, and then direct our fast to such ends as God will allow to be good: that the flesh may thereby be chastised, the spirit may be more fervent in prayer, and that our fasting may be a testimony of our humble submission to God’s majesty, when we acknowledge our sins unto him, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, bewailing the same in the affliction of our bodies.

In continuity with Bullinger, Ussher saw fasting as an outward means whereby the soul was made more malleable to the work of the Spirit.

Following Ussher very closely, the Westminster Confession spoke briefly of fasting in the context of public worship:

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner (21.5; emphasis added).

In the Larger Catechism this is put more strikingly: “What are the duties required in the second commandment? The duties required in the second commandment are . . . religious fasting” (Q&A 108).

In the Assembly’s Directory for the Publick Worship of God, an entire section was taken up with “Publick Solemn Fasting.” The context is either a time of trouble or a time of seeking God’s blessing:

When some great and notable judgments are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent, or by some extraordinary provocations notoriously deserved; as also when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, publick solemn fasting (which is to continue the whole day) is a duty that God expecteth from that nation or people.

Before the service members prepared privately and were to assemble “early at the congregation.” A “large a portion of the day as conveniently may be” was taken up in “publick reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer.” The Divines went on to give an outline of prayer:

Giving glory to the great Majesty of God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of all the world, the better to affect us thereby with an holy reverence and awe of him; acknowledging his manifold, great, and tender mercies, especially to the church and nation, the more effectually to soften and abase our hearts before him; humbly confessing of sins of all sorts, with their several aggravations; justifying God’s righteous judgments, as being far less than our sins do deserve; yet humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for ourselves, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, and for all others for whom we are bound to pray, (according as the present exigent requireth,) with more special importunity and enlargement than at other times; applying by faith the promises and goodness of God for pardon, help, and deliverance from the evils felt, feared, or deserved; and for obtaining the blessings which we need and expect; together with a giving up of ourselves wholly and for ever unto the Lord.

In prayer, ministers were “to speak from their hearts” so that both they and the people would be “much affected, and even melted thereby, especially with sorrow for their sins; that it may be indeed a day of deep humiliation and afflicting of the soul.”

Preaching texts were to be chosen based on what “may best work the hearts of the hearers to the special business of the day, and most dispose them to humiliation and repentance.”

Today’s Need

1. By instituting days of fasting and prayer today, we will be continually bringing our worship and life under the teaching of Scripture as it has been applied throughout church history.

2. By instituting days of fasting and prayer, we will be reminded of the greatness of our sins and misery in a public way and to be reminded of the necessity of true repentance and seeking the Lord.

3. By instituting days of fasting and prayer, we will publicly and corporately lift up the special needs of our congregations before the Lord. We need to dedicate ourselves to praying for the church’s inward condition and outward focus. Inwardly, we need to plead for our particular congregational needs, to plead for the wayward in our midst, to plead for our marriages, to plead for our children, to plead for godliness, and to plead for the preaching to be powerful. Outwardly we need to plead for passion in effectively witnessing, for the gospel to bear much fruit through us, and to see our congregations grow year by year.

The Impediments

What are some common impediments to holding services of fasting and prayer? Here are a few as I conclude:

1. No doubt the main culprit is our own spiritual laziness. As John Calvin said in his lectures on Joel 2:

. . . this practice has not been abolished by the gospel. And it hence appears how much we have departed from the right and lawful order of things; for at this day it would be new and unusual to proclaim a fast. How so? Because the greater part are become hardened; and as they know not commonly what repentance is, so they understand not what the profession of repentance means; for they understand not what sin is, what the wrath of God is, what grace is. It is then no wonder that they are so secure, and that when praying for pardon is mentioned, it is a thing wholly unknown at this day. But though people in general are thus stupid, it is yet our duty to learn from the Prophets what has always been the actual mode of proceeding among the people of God, and to labor as much as we can, that this may be known, so that when there shall come an occasion for a public repentance, even the most ignorant may understand that this practice has ever prevailed in the Church of God, and that it did not prevail through inconsiderate zeal of men, but through the will of God himself (Calvin, Commentaries on Joel, 14:45).

2. Another culprit are our overly scheduled and busy lives. Sadly, we are too busy to pray.

3. Finally, we are ignorant that one of the ordinary biblical means of seeking the Lord’s blessing is through public congregational fasting and prayers of penitence and thanksgiving.

Brothers and sisters, our light is getting dimmer and our saltiness is losing its savor. Let us seek the Lord through fasting and prayer in congregational services.

Continue Reading

Westminster Theological Journal 71:2

Posted on 07. Nov, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Last night I received Westminster Theological Journal 71:2 (Fall 2009) in the mail. There are several pieces worth mentioning for the purposes of this blog:

• The Pneumatology of the “Lost” Image in John Owen—Suzanne McDonald
• A Practical Scholasticism? Edward Leigh’s Theological Method—James E. Dolezal
• Samuel Rutherford and Liberty of Conscience—Crawford Gribben
• Marrow Theology and Secession Church History—William VanDoodewaard
• Review of Stephen Hampton, Anti-Arminian: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I—Kenneth J. Stewart

Tolle Lege.

Continue Reading

John Owen’s Exposition of Romans 8:26

Posted on 05. Nov, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Last night I presented lecture #5 of my series through John Owen’s, A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. In this lecture I dealt with chapter 4 of the treatise and Owen’s exposition of Romans 8:26: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (KJV).

The audio is available at Sermon Audio.

You may also download a .pdf of the outline: Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer–Handout 6.

Continue Reading